City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Herman, R., Alton, S. and Pring, T. (2011). Developing communication skills in deaf primary school pupils: Introducing and evaluating the smiLE approach. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(3), pp. 255-267. doi: 10.1177/0265659010381695
This is the unspecified version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/2220/
Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659010381695
Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected]
City Research Online
1
Title:
Developing Communication Skills in Deaf Primary School Pupils: Introducing
and Evaluating the smiLE Approach
Authors:
Sherryn Alton (Corresponding Author)
Rosalind Herman
Timothy Pring
2
ABSTRACT
Background: Many profoundly deaf signers have difficulty communicating with
hearing people. This paper describes smiLE (Strategies and Measurable Interaction
in Live English; Schamroth & Threadgill, 2007a) a therapy approach used to teach
deaf children skills to become successful communicators in real-life situations.
Aims: This study evaluates the effectiveness of smiLE in helping deaf pupils develop
their ability to make successful requests in a specific communication situation and
whether this generalized to another communication situation.
Method: Sixteen severely and profoundly deaf primary school pupils (7.2-11.0 years
old) received an 11-week programme of therapy. Their performances in a trained
and an untrained communication situation were compared pre- and post-therapy.
Results: In the trained task, the pupils’ interactions improved significantly. No
differences were found in the untrained task, suggesting that the learnt skills did not
generalize. Anecdotal findings suggest that some carry-over into a similar situation
had occurred and that trained skills were maintained.
Conclusions & Implications: The smiLE therapy approach is effective in providing
deaf children with the communication skills and confidence to interact with English
speakers in targeted situations. The lack of generalization of these skills to similar
situations may be overcome by a longer therapy programme specifically promoting
these skills across different situations.
Keywords: communication skills; deaf; generalization; Live English; outcome
measures; speech and language therapy; efficacy
Article Word Count: 4534 (excluding abstract, tables and references)
6377 (including abstract, article, tables and references)
3
INTRODUCTION
Within the population of deaf people are those who prefer to speak, those who use a
sign language and those who communicate using a combination of speech and
signing. Regardless of their communication preference, people who are deaf
experience much discrimination and lack of understanding in society at large
(Higgins, 1980). It is well known that profoundly deaf signers have considerable
difficulty in communicating with hearing people (Bench, 1992; Gagne, Stelmacovich
& Yovetich, 1991) as many have poor English skills and low levels of speech
intelligibility (Beazley, 1992; Bench, 1992; Carney & Moeller, 1998) and most hearing
people cannot sign. This can lead to the emergence of a ‘shared handicap of
communication’ between deaf and hearing partners (Bouvet, 1990) causing both to
be unsure and ineffective at communicating with each other (Beazley, 1992).
To be a competent communicator, a person must use a range of pragmatic skills
effectively. Owens (1996) showed that hearing children acquire these skills within the
first 8 years of life through conversational interactions. However, for profoundly deaf
children, learning the rules of social communication is more challenging (Crocker &
Edwards, 2004) and many have difficulties in acquiring pragmatic skills necessary for
communicating with hearing people, particularly when using the spoken modality
(Bench, 1992; Jeanes, Nienhuys & Rickards, 2000).
Common communicative difficulties identified in studies include failure to clarify
misunderstandings, solve disagreements or lead conversations (Stinson, Liu, Saur &
Long, 1996). The problems deaf children have in asking questions have also been
4
highlighted (Lederberg & Everhart, 2000; Nicholas & Geers, 2003). Deaf students
may additionally have difficulties with showing they do not understand something or
seeking clarification (Bench, 1992; Silvestre, Ramspott & Pareto, 2007; Wood, Wood,
Griffiths & Howarth, 1986). A study by Jeanes et al. (2000) found that signing deaf
children made fewer and less specific requests for clarification than oral deaf or
hearing peers and neither oral nor signing deaf children responded appropriately to
requests for clarification. This highlights the difficulties deaf pupils have in requesting
clarification, responding to requests for clarification and at times of communication
breakdown (Hindely, 2003; Jeanes et al, 2000; Silvestre et al., 2007).
In addition, deaf children are not always made aware of the lack of clarity of their own
communication. Often, a hearing parent or teacher will fail to signal the
ineffectiveness of a message or may themselves repair it for the child (Beazley,
1992; Brackett, 1983; Wood et al., 1986), thereby denying deaf children the chance
to develop the effectiveness of their interactions (Beazley, 1992) or take
responsibility for their own communication.
There may be a number of reasons why these patterns of difficulties develop.
Research has frequently noted that deaf children have reduced exposure to
naturalistic, meaningful conversations (Akamatsu & Musselman, 1998; Carney &
Moeller, 1998). Indeed, deaf children have reduced access to all aspects of
incidental learning as their hearing loss prevents easy access to spoken language
around them. With the exception of the small minority from deaf families, children
who sign are rarely in communication situations where they can ‘overhear’ competent
5
sign language users as hearing parents and professionals may themselves have
limited signing skills and frequently fail to use signing in the communication
environment unless directing it specifically at the deaf child (Greenberg, 2000).
Reduced quality and quantity of interactions means fewer opportunities for these
behaviours to be modelled and fewer opportunities for the deaf child to apply the
behaviours in natural settings (Brackett, 1983; Carney & Moeller, 1998; Jeanes et al.,
2000).
Poor communication has consequences for emotional learning and mental well-being
(Crocker & Edwards, 2004; Hindley, 2000). Marschark (1993) notes that many social-
emotional problems of deaf children and adults are rooted in early socialisation and
intertwined with impairments in hearing and language competence. While there is
nothing inherent in a hearing deficit that causes social immaturity or inadequacy,
there is evidence indicating that deaf children are relatively passive and less socially
mature than their hearing peers (Carney & Moeller, 1998; Lemanek, Williamson,
Gresham & Jensen, 1986; Meadows, 1980; White, 1982). This can often be related
to distortions of parent-child interaction, limited early communication, reduced access
to incidental learning and deprivation of social experiences (Hindley, 2003). Deaf
people who communicate poorly in the hearing world are more likely to be socially
isolated (Bain, Scott & Steinberg, 2004; Steinberg, Sullivan & Loew, 1998), are at
greater risk for psychological distress (Marschark, 1993) and have a greater overall
prevalence of mental illness than the general population (Crocker & Edwards, 2004;
Hindley, 2000).
6
Traditionally, speech and language therapy with deaf clients has focussed on
improving auditory perception, speech reading, speech production, vocal
characteristics and understanding and use of language (spoken and, more recently,
sign languages) (Carney & Moeller, 1998; Bench, 1992). Less consideration has
been given to the everyday communication experiences of deaf children. Bench
(1992) points out that, despite the large literature on the limited pragmatic abilities of
hearing-impaired people, little of it relates to the assessment of, or therapy for
learning and use of functional communication skills. In their review of treatment
efficacy in children with hearing loss, Carney and Moeller (1998) mention no studies
that focus on functional communication skills or social interaction. Given the potential
implications of a deaf person’s inability to interact with the hearing world, the urgency
to develop therapy techniques to address this need becomes apparent.
It is known that improving communication skills can increase confidence and self-
regard which have been shown to be particularly important in developing the social
and communicative competence in hearing-impaired children (Palmer, 1988; White,
1982). The present study describes a therapy programme to develop the functional
communication skills of deaf children based on a ‘Live English’ approach. The term
‘Live English’ was first used by Pickersgill & Gregory (1998) for the English used in
face-to-face communication. It has been developed by speech and language
therapists (SLTs) into a functional therapy approach focusing on real life
communication between a deaf and a non-signing, hearing person. A particular Live
English approach called ‘smiLE’ (Strategies and Measurable Interaction in Live
English; Schamroth and Threadgill, 2003; Schamroth and Threadgill 2007a;
Schamroth and Threadgill 2007b) is used in this study. This approach teaches
7
effective communication strategies through structured steps to allow successful
interaction in every day situations with English speakers.
Therapy is delivered in a series of smiLE modules. Each module focuses on a
selected communication situation that pupils may experience. A test-teach-test
approach is used and each child’s interactions in the communication situation are
filmed pre- and post-therapy. The videos are used for both assessment and feedback
to pupils, a technique held to be important in intervention (Brackett, 1983; Ducharme
& Holborn, 1997; Rustin & Kuhr, 1989).
The use of filmed material for assessment allows the therapist to identify which skills
pupils already have and which areas need further development. When used as a
therapy tool, the target skills are first elicited from pupils through discussion and adult
role-play before their videos are watched. This enables pupils to have a clear idea of
the target behaviours (as described by Schamroth & Threadgill, 2003; Schamroth &
Threadgill, 2007a; Schamroth and Threadgill 2007b; and Threadgill & Allwright,
2006). The video then enables pupils to gain visual feedback regarding their own
communication and gives opportunities for self-evaluation. By comparing their initial
and final performances, pupils see their achievements and can assess their own
progress. Since many deaf children struggle with literacy (Carney & Moeller, 1998;
Marschark, 1993), the smiLE approach uses symbols and simple written language to
access the targeted skills (Schamroth & Threadgill, 2007b; Threadgill & Allwright,
2006).
8
SmiLE therapy draws on techniques recommended and/or used in the literature. It
includes explicit teaching of basic skills (e.g. eye contact, facial expression),
communicative functions (e.g. greetings and interruptions) and socially appropriate
phrases as advocated by Beazley (1992) and Rustin & Kuhr (1989). As used in
programmes developed by Tye-Murray (1992), pupils are made aware of language or
vocabulary they may encounter during interactions and target skills are modelled
(see Ducharme & Holborn’s (1997) study for use of this method). Opportunities are
given for role-play and skills are practised in real situations as suggested by Brackett
(1983), Rustin & Kuhr (1989) and Beazley (1992) and used by Jeanes et al. (2000) in
their study on the pragmatic skills of profoundly deaf children. Giving opportunities to
interact with hearing people in a controlled environment can foster confidence and
teach children to take responsibility for their own communication (Palmer, 1988).
Bench (1992) recommends that, pupils practise active listening skills which involve
seeking clarification. Where appropriate, pupils also learn alternative ways to
communicate, as seen in Gagne et al.’s (1991) study. They are taught about the
need to adapt their message for different listeners (Brackett, 1983) and that simply
informing a stranger about one’s hearing loss can have a positive impact on the
communication (Bain et al., 2004).
SmiLE therapy is offered within a group context. This provides a ready-made social
situation and opportunities to practise and extend communication skills into a social
setting. Beazley (1992) suggests that a co-leader for such groups is beneficial. In
smiLE therapy, teachers work alongside SLTs in planning and presenting sessions,
allowing for carry-over into the classroom.
9
Pupils’ communication skills are assessed using carefully designed criterion-
referenced measures whereby relevant interaction behaviours needed for a specified
skill are broken down into a step-by-step checklist (described by Schamroth &
Threadgill, 2003; Schamroth & Threadgill, 2007a; Schamroth & Threadgill, 2007b;
Threadgill & Allwright, 2006). By carefully analysing the video footage, the therapist is
able to establish a baseline and provide later outcome measures which indicate
change and demonstrate the effectiveness of the intervention, the importance of
which is highlighted by Bray, Ross & Todd (2006) and Bunning, 2004. Evaluation,
however, should also assess the generalization of trained skills to other situations, an
area known to present problems to deaf children (Bench, 1992; Kreimeyer & Anita,
1988; McGinnis, 1983). The generalization of communication skills learnt in smiLE
therapy was also examined in this research.
Aims of the study
This study considered the impact of smiLE therapy in deaf primary school pupils. It
measured the changes in the children’s communication skills after smiLE therapy
and investigated whether deaf pupils spontaneously generalize the specific skills
learnt in therapy to another communication situation.
METHOD
Participants
10
A non-random sample of 16 deaf primary school children aged between 7.2 and 11.0
years old (mean: 9.3 years; SD: 14.2 months; 7 girls and 9 boys) participated. All
were severely or profoundly deaf, had normal cognitive functioning and attended a
specialist primary school for deaf children where a Total Communication (TC)
philosophy was followed. TC uses a combination of speaking, signing, finger spelling,
natural gestures, lip reading and other clues to facilitate communication (NDCS,
2008). Seven participants were from deaf families where British Sign Language
(BSL) was used; the others were from hearing families where English was the
dominant home language. All participants in the study used signing (BSL or Sign
Supported English) within the school environment and all relied on signing to support
their communication. Parental permission was obtained for pupils to participate in the
study.
Entry criteria for the study were that pupils were in Key stage 2 (Years 3-6), ate
school dinners at lunch time (the study involved making requests for their meals) and
had not previously received smiLE therapy. Participants were put into four small
groups of four to six pupils each .
Procedure
a) Communication situations
Pupils were filmed in two situations that could occur within the school setting and
which required them to interact with hearing, non-signers. Filming took place at the
beginning (pre-therapy) and end of term (post therapy).
11
Situation 1: Pupils were required to request a plaster from the school secretary. They
were shown a photograph of the secretary and a plaster, but were not given the BSL
sign or English word for it. The secretary was required to misunderstand the pupil’s
request and offer an incorrect item unless the child’s communication was perfectly
clear. Paper and pen were present for pupils to use, but were placed to the side of
the desk and attention was not specifically drawn to their availability. Pupils were
aware that they were being filmed.
Situation 2: Pupils made requests for their choice of food in the dining hall. They
were offered their usual food options on the day of filming and kitchen staff followed
their usual routine. The camera was unmanned in the dining hall and pupils were not
warned that they would be observed.
Situation 1 received smiLE therapy, Situation 2 did not.
b) Assessment
As no standardised assessments on pragmatic communication skills exist for deaf
children, a specially designed criterion referenced measure was used to assess the
children’s pragmatic and functional communication skills in this study. The carefully
designed criterion referenced measures are an important feature of the smiLE
approach.
Pupils’ communication was assessed on their achievement of a set of criteria using
an observational checklist. The criteria were matched as closely as possible across
the situations. In each situation, three aspects of the interaction were analysed: 1)
12
entering; 2) requesting and 3) leaving. Pupils received a ‘yes’ if criteria were met or
‘no’ if not. The criteria are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
INSERT TABLE 1 AND 2 HERE
c) Clarity of communication
The clarity of pupils’ communication in Situation 1 was assessed. This analysis
considered whether or not they used an accurate English utterance, and whether
intelligible speech and/or an effective alternative communication method (e.g. writing,
drawing) was used. The adjudicators judged whether the children’s request
utterances were a) intelligible (such that they would be understood by a person
unfamiliar with the speech of a deaf person) and b) grammatically accurate. Their
initial and final interactions were compared.
d) Scorer Reliability
The first author scored all videos. To check reliability, data was scored by two other
adjudicators. Videos were presented in a random order and the other adjudicators
were blind as to the time the video had been taken and whether the task was treated
or untreated. The first adjudicator was a SLT who could sign and was with familiar
smiLE, but did not know the children. The second was a hearing teacher with no
knowledge of sign language or smiLE and who had never worked with deaf children.
e) Therapy Sessions
13
Pupils received an 11-week block of smiLE therapy targeting communication skills
required for Situation 1. Therapy consisted of two 25 minute sessions per week
given to each group of 4-6 children. Two Specialist SLTs and four Specialist
Teachers of the Deaf were involved in the therapy sessions with the four groups of
children. One session a week was led by a Specialist SLT and run jointly with the
teacher. The other session recapped on skills learnt in previous session/s and was
planned by the therapist but run by the teacher alone. Identical therapy was provided
for each group.
Sessions used a structured format and followed a logical progression. They began
with discussion of the differences between BSL and spoken English to raise
awareness of the different languages that may be used by deaf and hearing people.
Most sessions focussed on the communication skills and spoken phrases required
for entering, making a request and leaving. One technique involved eliciting the
specific communication skills from pupils through discussion and adult role-play.
Filmed interactions were viewed by the group to see if those behaviours were
present. Pupils also had sessions on the use of alternative communication strategies
(e.g. drawing, writing, acting) to prepare them if their speech was not understood.
Pupils practised their entering, requesting and leaving through role-play.
Pupils’ interactions were viewed using a classroom interactive whiteboard and
projector. A variety of paper and interactive, electronic therapy materials were
developed to assist learning. Symbols (from the ‘Writing with Symbols 2000’
software package) were used to support understanding and reduce the literacy load.
14
These facilitated the learning of relevant communication skills and English phrases
and were used when analysing the students’ own filmed interactions.
RESULTS
The reliability of the data was assessed by correlating the scores of the 3
adjudicators for the pre- and post-therapy data for each situation using the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation. The 12 resulting correlations ranged from 0.743 to
0.952 and in each case were significant at p < 0.001. Further statistical analyses
were based on the means of the three adjudicators’ scores.
A three-factor within subjects ANOVA was used to analyse the data. The factors
were the two situations (treated/office and untreated/dining hall), the time of
assessment (before and after treatment) and the subtests of the assessment
(entering/requesting/leaving). As the numbers of items in the subtests were unequal,
scores were converted to percentages for the analysis. Significant main effects of
each variable were found. Scores after treatment were significantly higher than
those before (F (1, 15) = 23.51, p < 0.001) and scores for the office situation were
significantly higher than those for the dining hall (F (1, 15) = 13.59, p < 0.01). These
effects were qualified by a significant interaction between the variables (F (1, 15) =
21.87, p < 0.001). As expected this showed that the treated situation had improved
more than the untreated. Mean scores are shown in table 3. An analysis of simple
main effects found that there was no difference in the scores prior to treatment but
15
that scores for the office situation were significantly higher after treatment (F (1, 15) =
54.20, p < 0.001).
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
The subtests of the assessment also differed significantly (F (2, 30) = 3.95, p < 0.05).
This was due to lower scores on the entering section. The interaction between
situations and subtests was also significant (F (2, 30) = 24.07, p < 0.001). This
interaction combines the subtest scores for the pre- and post-therapy assessments.
An analysis of simple main effects showed that the office situation had significantly
higher scores for entering (F (1, 15) = 13.80, p < 0.01) and for leaving (F (1, 15) =
14.55, p < 0.01) but that scores for requesting were marginally higher in the dining
hall situation.
When comparing the percentage scores of the a) entering, b) request and c) leaving
subsections, of the initial versus final dining hall and office interactions (see Table 4),
the pupils’ initial dining hall (untreated situation) request (75.29%) was better than
their initial office (treated situation) request (50.00%). The pupils’ initial entering and
leaving were, however, better in the office situation. In the final situation, all
subsections were noticeably better in the office situation (treated situation) but almost
unchanged in the dining hall situation, giving further indication of the improvements
made following the smiLE therapy sessions regarding interaction in the office
situation.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
Clarity of communication
16
Before therapy, 3 pupils used intelligible and grammatically accurate English
utterances to make their request in the office (e.g. ‘Plaster please.’ or ‘Can I have a
plaster please?’). Five children used intelligible speech, although their
communication was not always grammatically correct. Five children used other
methods (e.g. gesturing/acting) to communicate their initial request or to support their
(potentially unintelligible) spoken request. None used drawing or writing. The
remaining three children used BSL when communicating with the hearing person.
Following therapy, English utterances were much improved; they were more
complete and all pupils attempted to produce some spoken English. Eleven used a
grammatically accurate English utterance for their post-therapy request and nine of
these were intelligible. Seven children used other methods effectively; two wrote and
one used drawing, while the others opted to use gesture or mime to support their
speech. In total, 12 children communicated effectively in their communication
attempt after therapy.
INSERT TABLE 5 HERE
DISCUSSION
In this study, deaf primary school pupils were filmed making a request to a hearing
adult in two school situations: the office and the dining hall. Performance in the office
17
improved significantly after a block of smiLE therapy; performance in the dining hall
remained unchanged. In the office, the children’s entering, requesting and leaving
behaviours all improved after therapy, as did the specific skills trained (e.g. eye
contact, use of ‘please’, ability to re-request after being misunderstood, etc).
The dining hall situation had an ambiguous role in this study. From an experimental
point of view, it acted as a control and its failure to improve indicates that changes in
the office situation were likely to be due to the therapy. From a clinical perspective,
however, the lack of generalization from the treated to the untreated task is
disappointing particularly as the latter was selected to utilise many of the skills
trained in therapy.
This failure to generalize raises a number of questions. Despite the similarity of the
tasks, confounding variables may have affected the outcome. Was the dining hall
task more difficult? This seems unlikely as it was a more familiar situation to the
pupils who had already developed strategies to get the food they wanted. This was
confirmed by their good scores for the requesting part of the task. The request was
less demanding as pupils could point to the food they wanted without having to make
a verbal or written request. Given that they did not experience any communication
breakdown in the dining hall, pupils may have had little incentive to change. The
situation was more public, less easily controlled and more distracting. It also differed
from the office situation in that the unmanned camera was less likely to cue different
behaviour. As a result, the dining room task may not have been as closely matched
to the office task as had been intended.
18
Conversely, the office task was, in some ways, more demanding. It was less familiar,
required more language and greater clarity from the child and aspects were
manipulated to increase the difficulty (e.g. by asking for an item that was out of sight
and the introduction of misunderstanding). The passivity typical in deaf children
(Lemanek et al., 1986; Meadows, 1980) was evident when many accepted the wrong
item in their initial attempts. Following therapy, the children had developed their
ability to re-request, to use clarification strategies when misunderstood and to politely
refuse an incorrect item. This led to a significant improvement: only 2 pupils (who
were the 2 youngest participants) failed to get the plaster after therapy. This indicates
that the therapy taught the pupils the skills for successful communication in this
situation. Further evidence of this was that many of them could use a grammatically
accurate English utterance and intelligible speech to request the item after therapy.
This shows that the therapy was successful in teaching children ways to apply their
linguistic knowledge and speech skills in a functional communication situation.
This speculation about the relative difficulty of the two tasks reveals a weakness in
the experimental design of the present study. Ideally the treated task should have
been counterbalanced across subjects thus removing possible task associated
confounding variables. Conducting the research in a school situation made this
inconvenient in the present study but its introduction is recommended in future
research as is the use of a control group.
19
The lack of generalization suggests that future work, either in research or in clinical
use of the therapy, should carefully consider the nature of the tasks to which
generalization might occur and the changes within therapy delivery that would
encourage it. In the current study, more practice of the same communication skills in
a variety of communication settings may have enhanced the carry-over of previously
learnt skills.
Anecdotally, it was noted that pupils became more aware of their communication and
some reported that they felt more confident to communicate with a hearing adult
using the skills they had learnt. For example, when watching the pre- and post-
therapy videos of his office request, one pupil commented that in the first video he
‘didn’t know how to ask’. He went on to sign that he then ‘learnt how and practised
with the therapist’ and that he felt more confident because he knew what to do the
second time he went into the office.
While their communication improved significantly during this study, it was apparent
that many participants had difficulty monitoring whether their speech had been
understood, an issue highlighted by Beazley (1992) and Brackett (1983). Initially,
pupils were largely unaware that the hearing adult had misunderstood them and
failed to enhance the clarity of their communication. Pupils had to be taught to
recognize when their speech had been unclear and when and how to use alternative
communication methods.
20
Deaf children often have difficulty with vocabulary and spelling (Marschark, 1993). In
the present study, pupils had to be specifically taught the writing and drawing skills to
describe a plaster. As Brackett (1983) suggests, it is often assumed that deaf
children will learn incidentally through experience or by watching deaf adult role
models. The present study suggests that many skills need to be explicitly taught.
In subsequent smiLE therapy after this study was completed, eight of the pupils were
placed in a similar office-type situation (but with different demands and a different
hearing adult). While not part of the study, it was noted that pupils had maintained
(and sometimes improved) the skills they had learned from the therapy. This
suggests that generalization does take place, though only to a very similar task. To
ensure that generalization occurs, it may be beneficial to include a combination of
maintenance and generalization programming techniques as part of the smiLE
therapy approach (as used by Ducharme & Holborn, 1997, Lemanek et al., 1986 and
Rasing, Coninx, Cduker & van den Hurk, 1994). This could involve discussion with
pupils of how skills can be used in different settings and provision of opportunities to
practice in a wider range of communication situations. Allowing pupils to practise
taught communication strategies in different environments may increase their
awareness of how to apply communication techniques in a range of situations as
suggested by Brackett (1983) and McGinnis (1983). There are also implications for
ways in which teachers, school staff and parents can help to reinforce
communication skills in everyday communication situations. Finally, it may also be
useful to incorporate role reversal where pupils are able to learn about the
perspective and needs of listeners and speakers. This may allow pupils to learn
about cause-and-effect aspects of communication and the difference between the
21
speaker’s intended message and listener’s perception, as suggested by Palmer
(1988.
CONCLUSION
The smiLE approach (Schamroth & Threadgill, 2007a) was used in this study to help
primary school children (7.2-11.0 years old) develop their communication skills and
was found to be effective within a targeted situation. A significant difference was
seen in the overall interactions of the pupils after therapy and much improvement
was seen within their entering, request and leaving behaviours. No improvement
was seen in the control situation. This suggests that children had not generalized the
learnt communication skills. Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that some
generalization into another, more similar situation had occurred and that the learnt
communication skills were maintained over a period of time. In view of these findings,
generalization may be improved by providing a longer therapy programme that
includes specific generalization techniques and which specifically promotes the use
of the learnt skills across different situations.
REFERENCES
22
Akamatsu, C. & Musselman, C. (1998). Development and use of conversational
proficiency interview with deaf adolescents. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.),
Psychological Perspectives on Deafness (Vol 2), pp. 265-295.
Bain, L., Scott, S. & Steinberg, A. (2004). Socialisation experiences and coping
strategies of adults raised using spoken language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 9 (1), pp. 120-128.
Beazley, S. (1992). Social skills group work with deaf people. In M. Fawcus (Ed.),
Group Encounters in Speech and Language Therapy. Kibworth: Far Communications
Ltd. (pp. 63-75).
Bench, R.J. (1992). Communication Skills in Hearing Impaired Children. London:
Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Bouvet, D. (1990). The Path to Language: Bilingual Education for Deaf Children.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brackett, D. (1983). Group communication strategies for the hearing-impaired. Volta
Review, 85 (5), pp. 16-128.
Bray, M, Ross, A & Todd, C. (2006). Speech and Language Therapy: Clinical
Process and Practice (2nd edition). Chichester: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Bunning, K. (2004). Speech and Language Therapy Intervention: Frameworks and
Processes. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Carney, A. E. & Moeller, M.P. (1998). Treatment efficacy: Hearing loss in children.
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, pp. S61-84.
Crocker, S. & Edwards, L. (2004). Deafness and additional difficulties. In S. Austen &
S. Crocker (Eds.), Deafness in Mind. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd. (pp. 252-269).
23
Ducharme, D.F. & Holborn, S. (1997). Programming generalisation of social skills in
pre-school children with hearing-impairments. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis,
30 (4), pp. 639-651.
Gagne, J.P., Stelmacovich, P. & Yovetich, W. (1991). Reactions to requests for
clarification used by hearing-impaired individuals. Volta Review, 93 (3), pp. 129-143.
Gibson, S. (1994). Bilingualism and Communication Skills: Attending to Hearing
Culture. In J. Kyle (Ed), Growing Up in Sign and Word: Papers from a Conference at
the Centre for Deaf Studies. University of Bristol. Chippenham, Wiltshire: Anthony
Rowe Ltd. (pp. 70-76).
Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Educational interventions: prevention and promotion of
competence (chapter 14). In P. Hindley & N. Kitson (Eds.), Mental Health and
Deafness. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd. (pp. 311-336).
Higgins, P.C. (1980). Outsiders in a Hearing World: A Sociology of Deafness.
Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hindley, P. (2000). Child and adolescent psychiatry (chapter 3). In P. Hindley & N.
Kitson (Eds.), Mental Health and Deafness. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd. (pp. 42-
74).
Jeanes, R.C., Nienhuys,T. & Rickards, F. (2000). The pragmatic skills of profoundly
deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5 (3), pp. 237-247.
Kreimeyer, K. & Anita, S. (1988). The development and generalisation of social
interaction skills in pre-school hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 90, pp. 219-
231.
24
Lederberg, A.R. & Everhart V.S. (2000). Conversation between deaf children and
their hearing mothers: Pragmatic and dialogic characteristics. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 5 (4), pp. 303-322.
Lemanek, K., Williamson, D., Gresham, F. & Jensen, B. (1986). Social skills training
with hearing-impaired children and adolescents. Behaviour Modification, 10 (1), pp.
55-71.
Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological Development of Deaf Children. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McGinnis, M. (1983). Social language: toward fluency and flexibility. Volta Review, 85
(5), pp. 101-115.
Meadows, K.P. (1980). Deafness and Child Development. London: Edward Arnold.
National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) (2008). Factsheet: Communicating with
your deaf child. URL (consulted 10 June 2009): http://www.ndcs.org.uk/.
Nicholas J. G. & Geers, A. E. (2003). Hearing status, language modality and young
children’s communicative and linguistic behaviour. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 8, pp. 422-437.
Owens, R.E. (1996). Language Development: An Introduction (4th edition). New
York: Merrill.
Palmer, L. (1988). Speech-reading as communication. Volta Review, 90 (5), pp. 33-
42.
Pickersgill, M. & Gregory, S. (1998). Sign Bilingualism: A Model. Wembley,
Middlesex, UK: Adept Press.
25
Rasing, E.J., Coninx, F., Cduker, P.C. & van den Hurk, A.J. (1994). Acquisition and
generalisation of social behaviours in language disabled deaf adolescents. Behavior
Modification, 18 (4), pp. 411-442.
Rustin, L. & Kuhr, A. (1989). Social Skills and the Speech Impaired. London: Whurr
Publishers Ltd.
Schamroth, K. & Threadgill, L. (2003). Live English Curriculum Programmes.
Presentation given at ‘Speech and Language Therapists involved in Bilingualism and
Deafness’ (SALTIBAD) Special Interest Group meeting: 5 Nov 2003, Royal College
of Speech and Language Therapists: London.
Schamroth, K. & Threadgill, L. (2007a). Using a ‘Live English’ Curriculum. RCSLT
Bulletin: Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Feb 2007, pp.12-13.
Schamroth, K. & Threadgill, L. (2007b). Strategies and Measurable Interaction in Live
English (smiLE): Live English Course, 28-29 June 2007: London.
Silvestre, N., Ramspott, A. & Pareto, I. (2007). Conversational skills in a
semistructured interview and self-concept in Deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 12 (1), pp. 38-54.
Steinberg, A., Sullivan, V. & Loew, R. (1998). Cultural and linguistic barriers to
mental health service access: The deaf consumer’s perspective. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 155 (7), pp. 982-984.
Stinson, M., Liu, Y., Saur, R., & Long, G. (1996). Deaf college students’ perceptions
of communication in mainstream classes. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 1 (1), pp. 40-51.
Threadgill, L. & Allwright, S. (2006). Key Elements for Live English: What Makes it
Work?. Presentation given at Live English Conference, 13 September 2006., London.
26
Tye-Murray, N. (1992). Preparing for communication interactions: The value of
anticipatory strategies for adults with hearing impairment. Journal of speech and
hearing research, 35, pp. 430-435.
White, K.R. (1982). Defining and prioritising the personal and social competencies
needed by hearing-impaired students. Volta Review, 84 (6), pp. 266-274.
Writing with Symbols 2000 (Version 2). Widgit Software Ltd (1999-2002): Cambridge.
Wood, D., Wood, H., Griffiths, A. & Howarth, I. (1986). Teaching and talking with deaf
children. In S. Gregory & G. Hartley (Eds.), Constructing Deafness. London: Whurr
Publishers Ltd. (pp. 143-150).
27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Karin Schamroth for introducing the first author to smiLE and for her
support throughout the study; to Laura Threadgill for her assistance providing the
therapy, and to Emma Lawlor and Richard Alton who assisted with the video scoring.
Thanks also to the school and the pupils for their participation.
28
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Scoring Criteria for Pupils’ Interaction in Situation 1 (the Office)
Entering:
1) Does the pupil approach / wait appropriately? Yes / No
2) Does the pupil make appropriate initial eye contact? Yes / No
3) Does the pupil smile / use a pleasant facial expression? Yes / No
4) Does the pupil use an appropriate greeting (e.g. hello,
wave)?
Yes / No
5) Does the pupil stand appropriately and at an appropriate
distance?
Yes / No
Request:
1) Did the pupil make their request using an effective method
that could be understood by a non-signer?
Yes / No
2) Did the child use ‘Please’? Yes / No
3) Did child re-request after being misunderstood? (in English
or other method)
Yes / No
4) Did the child refuse the incorrect item? Yes / No
5) Did child re-request after being offered the wrong item?
(in English or other method)
Yes / No
6) Did the child use clarification strategies in their re-request Yes / No
29
(at any stage)? (e.g. point, write, helpful repetition, check,
clarify etc)
7) Did the child get what they wanted? (i.e. the plaster) Yes / No
Leaving:
1) Does the pupil make appropriate eye contact? Yes / No
2) Does the pupil smile / use a pleasant facial expression? Yes / No
3) Does the pupil use an audible and recognisable ‘Thank
you’?
Yes / No
4) Does the pupils leave appropriately (e.g. ‘bye’, walking out,
close door etc)
Yes / No
30
Table 2: Scoring Criteria for Pupils’ Interaction in Situation 2 (the Dining Hall)
Entering:
1) Does the pupil approach / wait appropriately? Yes / No
2) Does the pupil make appropriate initial eye contact? Yes / No
3) Does the pupil smile / use a pleasant facial expression? Yes / No
4) Does the pupil use an appropriate greeting? Yes / No
5) Does the pupil stand appropriately and at an appropriate
distance?
Yes / No
Request:
1) Was the request made appropriately for a non-signer (i.e.
using English or a clear strategy)?
Yes / No
2) Did the child use ‘Please’? Yes / No
3) Were appropriate facial expressions used during the
interaction?
Yes / No
4) Did the child refuse items they did not want? Yes / No
5) Was this done politely? Yes / No
6) Did the child use clarification strategies in their request (at
any stage)? (e.g. repeat, point, write, check, clarify etc)
Yes / No
7) Did the child get what they wanted? Yes / No
Leaving:
1) Does the pupil make appropriate eye contact? Yes / No
31
2) Does the pupil smile / use a pleasant facial expression? Yes / No
3) Does the pupil use an audible and recognisable ‘Thank
you’?
Yes / No
4) Does the pupils leave appropriately (e.g. ‘bye’, walking
away etc)
Yes / No
32
Table 3: Mean percentage scores for treated and untreated situations.
Time
Situation Pre Post
Office Mean 60.07 93.02
Std. dev. 25.35 9.15
Dining Hall Mean 62.70 60.40
Std. Dev. 14.35 17.91
Table 4: Initial vs Final Office (treated) and Dining Hall (untreated) Entering,
Request and Leaving Skills
Entering Request Leaving
Office – initial 58.33% 50.00% 71.88%
Dining Hall –
initial
52.92% 75.29% 59.89%
Office – final 95.42% 88.00% 95.83%
Dining Hall – final 48.33% 78.57% 54.17%
33
Table 5: Effectiveness of Communication: Use of grammatical English,
intelligible speech and alternative communication methods
Number
of pupils
using
accurate
English
grammar
Total pupils
using intelligible
speech
(grammatical or
ungrammatical)
Number of
pupils using
other
understandable
methods to
communicate
Number of
pupils whose
request may
have been
successful first
time
Pre-therapy
Situation 1
Request
3
(18.75%)
5
(31.25%)
5
(31.25%)
8
(50%)
Post-therapy
Situation 1
Request
11
(68.75%)
9
(56.25%)
7
(43.75%)
12
(75%)